• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A question for the anti-war crowd.

Cookie Parker said:
unfortunately, far too many people only want to fight terrorists AFTER they have murdered thousands of innocent civilians.

Proud American. Please provide me proof that Saddam Hussein harbored the terrorists who attacked us.

Thank you.

I never said he did.

But its clear that you fall into the category of wanting to wait untill we are attacked to do something about the problem.

if we had gone into afghanistan before 9-11 you would have yelled....."please provide proof that afghanistan harbors any terrorists that are a direct threat to America"
 
ProudAmerican said:
I never said he did.

But its clear that you fall into the category of wanting to wait untill we are attacked to do something about the problem.

if we had gone into afghanistan before 9-11 you would have yelled....."please provide proof that afghanistan harbors any terrorists that are a direct threat to America"

Iraq was being planned way before 9-11. Even when Clinton was in presidency politicians were eyeing Iraq. 9-11 was just a segway for Iraq. Did you notice how we kind of half assed our search for binladen and morphed Saddam into Osama by focusing our military power on Iraq rather than catching that bastard. It's like Bush is a kid with ADD or something.
 
Proud American.

It is equally clear to me that you are one of those who will just go inot any Muslim nation and attack.

I thinkw e all knew who the terrorists were and where they were located. As of March 2002, here's what Bush said about the known terrorists who attacked us:

HTML:
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000311.htm

PHP:
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you...I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

I think we need a leader who will follow through with a plan to address the terrrorist issue. Not ignore the terrorist, and the country which supplies all it's funds because he has a personal and business relationship with the families. A president whose agenda is not to secure oil for his Saudi friends and make his vice president rich on guaranteed tax dollars for decades.

I am quite sure you will concede that Bush does not have a plan to get terrorists and under his watch, his close personal and business ties with the terrorists are a jeopardy to our nation.
 
Cookie Parker said:
I thinkw e all knew who the terrorists were and where they were located. As of March 2002, here's what Bush said about the known terrorists who attacked us:

I think we need a leader who will follow through with a plan to address the terrrorist issue. Not ignore the terrorist, and the country which supplies all it's funds because he has a personal and business relationship with the families. A president whose agenda is not to secure oil for his Saudi friends and make his vice president rich on guaranteed tax dollars for decades.

I am quite sure you will concede that Bush does not have a plan to get terrorists and under his watch, his close personal and business ties with the terrorists are a jeopardy to our nation.


***Wow, you couldn't be more wrong about Bush's plan/no plan in addressing the terrorist issue. Saddam himself was perhaps the greatest terrorist of them all. What Bush has done in Iraq with the Democratizing of a nation once run by a tyrant is no small feat in the fight on terrorism. Finding Bin Laden is like looking for a needle in a haystack, and you know it. Meantime, Bush's strategy is to get the masses of people/Muslims to elect Democratic governments--which in turn leaves the terrorist contingent disabled, depleted and non-functional. How many of those televised terrorist camps have you seen on TV lately? Nary a one, I'm sure. Cookie, you (like most liberals) fail to see the bigger picture.

How many years did the former Soviet Union spend in fighting Afghanastan--only to lose and go home humiliated? The record time that Bush is sweeping Democracy through these troubled Mid East countries is simply remarkable. Be patient my dear.

Just think how far along the U.S. would be today on fighting terrorism had Algore or flip-flopper Kerry been president. Not a pretty sight...is it?
 
Cookie Parker said:
Proud American.

It is equally clear to me that you are one of those who will just go inot any Muslim nation and attack.

I thinkw e all knew who the terrorists were and where they were located. As of March 2002, here's what Bush said about the known terrorists who attacked us:

HTML:
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/000311.htm

PHP:
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you...I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

I think we need a leader who will follow through with a plan to address the terrrorist issue. Not ignore the terrorist, and the country which supplies all it's funds because he has a personal and business relationship with the families. A president whose agenda is not to secure oil for his Saudi friends and make his vice president rich on guaranteed tax dollars for decades.

I am quite sure you will concede that Bush does not have a plan to get terrorists and under his watch, his close personal and business ties with the terrorists are a jeopardy to our nation.

to claim we arent concerned with Bin Laden is ludicrous. and its really funny when the bush haters take that quote out of context.

Now, if you dont mind, respond to the point of my last post.

on 9-10-2001 would you have supported invading Afghanistan and taking out the terrorsts that had not yet killed any innocent Americans on our soil? or would you have wanted to wait untill AFTER we were attacked?

and I suppose you are correct about going into muslem nations and attacking, but he, its not my fault the vast majority of scum sucking terrorists come from muslim nations.
 
PHP:
***Wow, you couldn't be more wrong about Bush's plan/no plan in addressing the terrorist issue. Saddam himself was perhaps the greatest terrorist of them all. What Bush has done in Iraq with the Democratizing of a nation once run by a tyrant is no small feat in the fight on terrorism. Finding Bin Laden is like looking for a needle in a haystack, and you know it. Meantime, Bush's strategy is to get the masses of people/Muslims to elect Democratic governments--which in turn leaves the terrorist contingent disabled, depleted and non-functional. How many of those televised terrorist camps have you seen on TV lately? Nary a one, I'm sure. Cookie, you (like most liberals) fail to see the bigger picture.

How many years did the former Soviet Union spend in fighting Afghanastan--only to lose and go home humiliated? The record time that Bush is sweeping Democracy through these troubled Mid East countries is simply remarkable. Be patient my dear.

Just think how far along the U.S. would be today on fighting terrorism had Algore or flip-flopper Kerry been president. Not a pretty sight...is it?
__________________

ptsd kid...wow....logical fallacies...I'll need help locating them all, but I'll try.

PHP:
***Wow, you couldn't be more wrong about Bush's plan/no plan in addressing the terrorist issue. Saddam himself was perhaps the greatest terrorist of them all.

What plan? WMDs? Terrorist cells? He and Cheney admitted they were wrong about this. There is no plan...there's oil. that's it. There's a tax payer bled incentive for Halliburton. You need to show proof of this somehow. Your opinion doesn't cut it. Your opinion has been proven wrong so many times over...

PHP:
What Bush has done in Iraq with the Democratizing of a nation once run by a tyrant is no small feat in the fight on terrorism.

This is a theocracy.. Exactly what bin Laden would have wanted and what he tried to do under Saddam's reign. Saddam didn't want a country run by Islam. Bush gave bin Laden a country run by Islamic teachings. Where you been ptsd? I would have thought you would have read that somewhere.

There is no democracy in this nation. You really need to research this.

PHP:
 Finding Bin Laden is like looking for a needle in a haystack, and you know it.

So, our nation with all it's advances in technology, with all the CIA and other subversive groups can't locate bin Laden, huh? Well, how about cutting their budget then. Since Bush has been in, this agency has been the highest ranking incompetent group of people ever. Bush walked away from bin Laden on March 13, 2002 saying he knew where he was and he was no longer a threat...six months after bin Laden caused 9/11, Bush walks away.

PHP:
ow many years did the former Soviet Union spend in fighting Afghanastan--only to lose and go home humiliated?

Could have been all that money and weapons Daddy Bush gave bin Laden to fight the Russians, don't you think? Daddy helps bin Laden, Bush walks away from "tracking" him down and capturing him "Dead or Alive". So, think that long time family connection to businesses is at play here?

Maybe you will come and see the light, PST kid. It's possible. You just need to read a bit more of what's going on.
 
[QUOTE=Cookie Parker
ptsd kid...wow....logical fallacies...I'll need help locating them all, but I'll try.


***Dear Cookie,

I see that I’ll have to go back to basic ‘politics 101’ in order to properly debunk your illogical and damning rhetoric.

I’ll start with liberal interference to this war:

First, ‘either your with us or your against us’. I have seen nothing to suggest that a liberal (any liberal) is on America’s side with our fight with terrorism. They are what I would call AINO (American in name only) especially with our war on terrorism. We are at war, so any comments, plans, ideas or military acumen to help us win the war should come from those in the administration together with our military troops and brass. These are the people giving the orders, planning the military strategies, i.e. fighting terrorism on ‘their’ terms.

These fine committed people do not need a Cookie Parker, Michael Moore, or a Cindy Sheehan spreading propaganda and detrimental rhetoric while our committed troops fight a war. Plenty of time for negative nabobs of gloom and doom once the war is over.

Cookie, everything you said in response to me had come from a negative point of view or perspective. Granted, there isn’t much to cheer about during wartime, and there certainly is plenty to grieve about, but I have always looked at the bigger picture that almost always shines a brighter light by having long term insight and viable strategic planning. You will not hear about all the good things that have and are happening with the people of Iraq, because a liberal will not dig to find those stories; that would go directly against the liberal’s agenda to lose the war i.e. so as to bring Bush down, and to make it look like another Vietnam.

About your Haliburton comments:

There is nothing to suggest that America is fighting in the MidEast so as to take over the oil fields. Wouldn’t we have taken over the oil fields by now if that was our objective? You seem to have contempt for Haliburton because of Cheney’s former ties to it. Do you also have contempt for the Texas Rangers baseball team because George Bush once owned it? My point here is Haliburton is an American corporation. They have a contract to do work in the MidEast. Would you prefer a foreign country like China, Cuba, or Venezuela get the contract over an American company? America’s success in business is a liberal’s nightmare. America’s success in war is also a liberal’s nightmare.

Keeping the overall picture in mind, America hasn’t been attacked by terrorists for 4 ½ years thanks to Bush bringing the fight to Islamic Fascists on their land. You and others of your ilk keep making snide remarks that we haven’t captured Bin Laden. Rather than expend our resources to search for a coward in some spider hole through thousands of miles of rough terrain--Bush has decided to fight visible terrorism throughout the entire MidEast. Bin Laden has been rendered to non-entity status. Again, you do not see terrorist boot camp training facilities on TV anymore. This is because of our widespread (in your face) presence all over rag-head nation (thanks to George Bush).

I look at the progress America is making with the reduction in terrorism, and with the free elections and outing of a murdering tyrant in Iraq as positive accomplishments. You look at successful American businesses (Haliburton) with contempt, and at America’s resolve to fight terrorism with a contemptible eye and with a dangerous alternative.

Proud American…Tim
 
PHP:
First, ‘either your with us or your against us’. I have seen nothing to suggest that a liberal (any liberal) is on America’s side with our fight with terrorism. They are what I would call AINO (American in name only) especially with our war on terrorism. We are at war, so any comments, plans, ideas or military acumen to help us win the war should come from those in the administration together with our military troops and brass. These are the people giving the orders, planning the military strategies, i.e. fighting terrorism on ‘their’ terms.

Bandwagonning. Trying to wrap things around a flag and call it right. Let me tell you this war was a lie, there was no preparation for our troops who were inadequately equpped with protective gear (most of which they had to buy) and they still are being killed and receiving sever head wounds because of lack of production of protected Humvee vehciles. These incompetent Pentagon people and the incompetency of Rumsfeld puts soldiers in harms' way. The bulk of their time is defending Halliburton interests. The cutback in veteran benefits and veteran medical facilities is how this fine and illustrious administration treats its veterans.

PHP:
Cookie, everything you said in response to me had come from a negative point of view or perspective. Granted, there isn’t much to cheer about during wartime, and there certainly is plenty to grieve about, but I have always looked at the bigger picture that almost always shines a brighter light by having long term insight and viable strategic planning. You will not hear about all the good things that have and are happening with the people of Iraq, because a liberal will not dig to find those stories; that would go directly against the liberal’s agenda to lose the war i.e. so as to bring Bush down, and to make it look like another Vietnam.

This is just a red herring. You are putting this out there and trying again to gather support by trying to name-call, as well. There is not strategy and the incompetence of this administration is what is the tragedy of this war...that and their refusal to treat soldiers correctly by providing them with the gear and safety they need in the war and the just rewards of medical treatment and care when they come home.

PHP:
There is nothing to suggest that America is fighting in the MidEast so as to take over the oil fields. Wouldn’t we have taken over the oil fields by now if that was our objective? You seem to have contempt for Haliburton because of Cheney’s former ties to it. Do you also have contempt for the Texas Rangers baseball team because George Bush once owned it? My point here is Haliburton is an American corporation. They have a contract to do work in the MidEast. Would you prefer a foreign country like China, Cuba, or Venezuela get the contract over an American company? America’s success in business is a liberal’s nightmare. America’s success in war is also a liberal’s nightmare.

With the Bush family in business with the bin Laden's in The CArlyle Group which is an investment firm for wars, and with the close ties the Bush's have with the Saudi royal family...there is more than enought evidence to point to the fact this war is all about oil. North Korea has WMDs/ WE aren't there. And they are more of a threat to us than Iraq and Iran are.

PHP:
I look at the progress America is making with the reduction in terrorism, and with the free elections and outing of a murdering tyrant in Iraq as positive accomplishments. You look at successful American businesses (Haliburton) with contempt, and at America’s resolve to fight terrorism with a contemptible eye and with a dangerous alternative.

Now this last statement lets everyone see you news source. Limbaugh. Turn him off. there is real news out there that will explain to you what is going on. Head out of sand...pulse on what your government is doing...keeps you a citizen of a constitutional government...Thank heaven for this nation that the Democrats love their country enough to fight against the crime and corruption in the White House and the Congress.
 
ptsdkid said:
I see that I’ll have to go back to basic ‘politics 101’ in order to properly debunk your illogical and damning rhetoric.

Keep in mind Ptsd that not all of us are as gullible and stupid as you.


I’ll start with liberal interference to this war:

First, ‘either your with us or your against us’. I have seen nothing to suggest that a liberal (any liberal) is on America’s side with our fight with terrorism. They are what I would call AINO (American in name only) especially with our war on terrorism. We are at war, so any comments, plans, ideas or military acumen to help us win the war should come from those in the administration together with our military troops and brass. These are the people giving the orders, planning the military strategies, i.e. fighting terrorism on ‘their’ terms.

Well since we're all Americans we obviously on America's side. Having known a few people in those towers I think I'd rather we don't get attacked. However we do no believe in this fascism that cons have adopted. 'either your with us or against us' is just another example of how We are called unpatriotic terrorists for speaking our minds and thinking for ourselves and for our country. The idea of not challenging the government is fascist and nothing you say about it can change it.

Most people disagree with Iraq because it had stupid reasons it had no connection with Osama and WMDs. It was however, in the heart of Islam and had tons of oil. Although it's great that we now have a nice supply of oil that can easily be accessed there, I don't think it's worth 2,083 dollars per American and 2500 American casualties.

These fine committed people do not need a Cookie Parker, Michael Moore, or a Cindy Sheehan spreading propaganda and detrimental rhetoric while our committed troops fight a war. Plenty of time for negative nabobs of gloom and doom once the war is over.

Oh yes those people who believe in democracy are not needed. They're just lying about the 2500 casualties right? And the fact that there are no WMDs and 2 trillion dollars invested in this war.

Cookie, everything you said in response to me had come from a negative point of view or perspective. Granted, there isn’t much to cheer about during wartime, and there certainly is plenty to grieve about, but I have always looked at the bigger picture that almost always shines a brighter light by having long term insight and viable strategic planning. You will not hear about all the good things that have and are happening with the people of Iraq, because a liberal will not dig to find those stories; that would go directly against the liberal’s agenda to lose the war i.e. so as to bring Bush down, and to make it look like another Vietnam.

Things must be really good when the military has to plant news into the IRaqi newspapers right? THis war has no upside for us. We're paying more, and more for a war that was based on a lie and has an unclear cause in a time when the money being used to wage war could feed the poor and starving or fix our SS problem.

About your Haliburton comments:

There is nothing to suggest that America is fighting in the MidEast so as to take over the oil fields. Wouldn’t we have taken over the oil fields by now if that was our objective? You seem to have contempt for Haliburton because of Cheney’s former ties to it. Do you also have contempt for the Texas Rangers baseball team because George Bush once owned it? My point here is Haliburton is an American corporation. They have a contract to do work in the MidEast. Would you prefer a foreign country like China, Cuba, or Venezuela get the contract over an American company? America’s success in business is a liberal’s nightmare. America’s success in war is also a liberal’s nightmare.

success in what? in establishing a theocracy? We haven't seized their oil rigs because people would notice and what the hell would the prez say then? Besides, who do you thinks going to be their best customer once they have a stable gov't, Saddam?

Keeping the overall picture in mind, America hasn’t been attacked by terrorists for 4 ½ years thanks to Bush bringing the fight to Islamic Fascists on their land. You and others of your ilk keep making snide remarks that we haven’t captured Bin Laden. Rather than expend our resources to search for a coward in some spider hole through thousands of miles of rough terrain--Bush has decided to fight visible terrorism throughout the entire MidEast. Bin Laden has been rendered to non-entity status. Again, you do not see terrorist boot camp training facilities on TV anymore. This is because of our widespread (in your face) presence all over rag-head nation (thanks to George Bush).

Oh yes 4 and a half years, big accomplishment! We're actually safe! When there is a murderer who killed 2000 people do we just let him run loose, or do we have the police catch him? It's sick that you can just say oh, he's not attacking us right now so let's leavve him alone.

rag-head nation just shows how ****ing ignorant you are. There were no terrorists in Iraq that posed a threat to us. Face the facts, that fox news is propaganda. Stop watching it, it's hurting your brain!

[/QUOTE]I look at the progress America is making with the reduction in terrorism, and with the free elections and outing of a murdering tyrant in Iraq as positive accomplishments. You look at successful American businesses (Haliburton) with contempt, and at America’s resolve to fight terrorism with a contemptible eye and with a dangerous alternative.

Proud American…Tim[/QUOTE]

Yay! We established a theocracy at the cost of 2 trillion dollars. We're in the largest deficiet and debt ever, and have SS and healthcare in a complete mess. Osama is still out there. Great! dude just great. We got Saddam but who ****ing cares? he had no WMDs and was no threat to us. This is just fantastic.
 
Your welcome post suggested that you were going to learn the fine points of debating on this forum. Time to go back to class, but first, time to learn more about the overall picture of our presence in the Mid East, and the push for peace worldwide. You can remain on the sidelines by whining and claiming that you know more about foreign affairs than our men and women in the military, the Pentagon, and the White House--but I'll back our mission 100% just like I would back any of Clinton's foreign affairs missions. I suggest you reaquaint yourself with our red white and blues by saluting the flag of our country that gave you the freedom to spill out nonsense with every word.
 
Che said:
Keep in mind Ptsd that not all of us are as gullible and stupid as you.

That was uncalled for.
 
Wrapping yourself in the flag does not make you right.

This administration's "foreign" policy is the pre-emptive strike. Going into nations with no one's approval ("one" being the UN and other countries) and doing what we want, and taking what we want. This being said, it is a new policy for our nation who used to use defense of our nation as the only reason to go to war.

Of course there are many people against this policy. This policy stirs up hatred against our nation. It changes how we are perceived in the world, going from benevolent Christian nation to aggressive war-mongering nation.

To understand what the implications are from Bush's reckless actions, you need to maybe look at AlJazeer.com. in English. Knowing how you impact the people you are bombing is a good perspective, I think, in figuring out if Bush has done any good with his policies.
 
Cookie Parker said:
Wrapping yourself in the flag does not make you right.

This administration's "foreign" policy is the pre-emptive strike. Going into nations with no one's approval ("one" being the UN and other countries) and doing what we want, and taking what we want. This being said, it is a new policy for our nation who used to use defense of our nation as the only reason to go to war.

Of course there are many people against this policy. This policy stirs up hatred against our nation. It changes how we are perceived in the world, going from benevolent Christian nation to aggressive war-mongering nation.

To understand what the implications are from Bush's reckless actions, you need to maybe look at AlJazeer.com. in English. Knowing how you impact the people you are bombing is a good perspective, I think, in figuring out if Bush has done any good with his policies.



***War is a little more serious than wrapping oneself symbolically in a flag. We're fighting a war on unconventional terrorist forces. In essence, this is WWIII or WWIV depending on whether you consider the cold war WWIII. Rag head nation has already declared their acts of aggression as a modern day Crusades, i.e. a jihad (holy war). And you're concerned that 'OUR' policy stirs up hatred? How asinine and myopic is that? Islamic Jihadists breed hate and breed new generations of suicide trainees. Where have you been? Their main stated objective is to eliminate the white man and Christianity as we know it. And I emphasize...'stated'. You would do yourself a favor if you were to get a transcript of what 'Little Hitler'--the leader of Iran has said concerning Israel and the United States.

Hiding your collective heads' in the sand by becoming isolationists from the worldwide threats of radical Islamic Fascism is not going to cut it in the 21st century.

If you think the a Democratic administration can do a better job of fighting these forces--then place your vote in 2008 for a strong foreign affairs candidate like the feminist Hillary or the flip-flopping anti-war John Kerry. Until then, you need to bow out of the picture, as you are a detriment, and an intefering factor of the anti war crowd. Undermining our president and our troops during war is nothing less than an act of sedition.

The fact that you spend time listening to or reading anti American garbage from Aljazeer tells everyone here where you're particular commitment lies, (and it certainly isn't with the US of A).

Would have loved to have had you beside me in a foxhole in Vietnam. If you weren't complaining that leeches were sucking blood from you, you would be complaing that you're not strong enough to raise the M-16 into a viable position of defense. I could see Charlie coming at you and you balk at the decision to kill him, as you ponder the idea that Charlie has the right to hate all Americans; perhaps he is justified in killing me. Like I said before, we are at war; the military is doing the fighting; they're all volunteers; Congress gave Bush the OK to go to war; Saddam renaged on 19 resolutions; we had 30 some odd allies on our side; and we captured a genocidal tyrant.

So those (like yourself) that are against this war--need to get out of the way by letting those with a spine fight the spread of Islamic Fascism. Simple solution to your concern...shut up!
 
Hiding your collective heads' in the sand by becoming isolationists from the worldwide threats of radical Islamic Fascism is not going to cut it in the 21st century.

i wouldn't advocate burying of heads in sand but i would also not advocate the rather indiscriminate use of hard power.
A cronin had written a very interesting article about globalisation and international terrorism. In this article he argues that globalisation has given the terrorists new methods and justification but that globalisation can also be used to defeat terrorism. He focuses on these tactics:

International Law
Coalition Building
Economic Sanctions
Financial Controls
Educational Training
Foreign Aid

He goes on to argue that the traditional US thinkers that influence policy making continue to see international relations with a state-centric outlook that continues to see 21st century terrorism in familar strategic terms. as has been seen in afghanistan and Iraq the US knows how to weald its considerable military power against states but finds it ahrd to deal with ad hoc terrorists cells and insurgency
 
Che said:
Did you notice how we kind of half assed our search for binladen and morphed Saddam into Osama by focusing our military power on Iraq rather than catching that bastard.

Who would need to catch the crazy bastard Che Gevara or the crazy bastard Osama, we need to burn out the soil breeding the bastards.
The bastards go to hell without too much of our help, any way.
 
The Real McCoy said:
What do you people who oppose the war in Iraq propose we do to combat the problem of terrorism?


Here's the SOLUTION!

BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW! AND BOMB THE CRAP OUT OF ANY TOWN WE THINK TERROR IS BEING HARBORED WHERE EVER IN THE WORLD THAT MAY BE! SCREW THEM! YOU'RE EITHER WITH US, OR AGAINST US! GROUND TROOPS ISN'T THE ANSWER!

The ONLY ground personel being Arab allies infiltrating terror groups!
 
Originally Posted by The Real McCoy
What do you people who oppose the war in Iraq propose we do to combat the problem of terrorism?
Stop exacerbating the problem with our foreign policy.


Originally Posted by Ironside
Here's the SOLUTION!

BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW! AND BOMB THE CRAP OUT OF ANY TOWN WE THINK TERROR IS BEING HARBORED WHERE EVER IN THE WORLD THAT MAY BE! SCREW THEM! YOU'RE EITHER WITH US, OR AGAINST US! GROUND TROOPS ISN'T THE ANSWER!

The ONLY ground personel being Arab allies infiltrating terror groups!
This isn't a solution, it's part of the problem. We need to stop being so intolerent of other cultures and stop being so arrogant about ours. And that has nothing to do with appeasing "head-choppers" or being anti-American.

If the Pentagon admitted that our foreign policy is part of the problem in the middle east, do the math!
 
Great post.

The pre-emptive strike policy has failed this nation and its security. It, coupled with the lack of controlling illegals crossing the Mexican border demonstrates more of a complicity with the Arab nations than an intolerance. By that, I mean look at all of our nation that has been sold to the Arabs. Look at the Bush family ties to bin Laden's and the royal family and you have a real conflict of interest in dealing with the terrorist issues.

Bush fails because his interests are not in America...his interests are in oil...
 
Cookie Parker said:
Great post.

The pre-emptive strike policy has failed this nation and its security. It, coupled with the lack of controlling illegals crossing the Mexican border demonstrates more of a complicity with the Arab nations than an intolerance. By that, I mean look at all of our nation that has been sold to the Arabs. Look at the Bush family ties to bin Laden's and the royal family and you have a real conflict of interest in dealing with the terrorist issues.

Bush fails because his interests are not in America...his interests are in oil...


***Simply amazes me how myopic you people have become. Don't you remember Bush's State of the Union speech where he clearly said that America needs to cut it's dependency on foreign oil. He went on to say that we need to find alternative methods to oil. I said before, if Bush had wanted to secure the oil fields in the Mid East--he would have done it by now. What part of (he doesn't want the foreign oil) don't you understand?
 
Cookie Parker said:
Great post.

The pre-emptive strike policy has failed this nation and its security. It, coupled with the lack of controlling illegals crossing the Mexican border demonstrates more of a complicity with the Arab nations than an intolerance. By that, I mean look at all of our nation that has been sold to the Arabs. Look at the Bush family ties to bin Laden's and the royal family and you have a real conflict of interest in dealing with the terrorist issues.

Bush fails because his interests are not in America...his interests are in oil...

That's right! Bush is best friends with the terrorists. That's why the Taliban were kicked out of power and why the terrorists are being hunted to the ends of the earth.

And the pre-emptive strike policy is wrong. It would be a lot better for the U.S. to sit and wait for each threat to come home and kill a few thousand American citizens. The best way to know we're right and to feel morally justified is to let threats fully materialize and have nukes go off in Amrican towns. If nothing else, it will give America the sympathy of the world. You saw how many people around the world felt bad for the U.S. after 9/11 (except for those who celebrated). Imagine how much sympathy a nuke going off in New York or Washington D.C. will generate. It will be great for America's standing in the world.

This way liberals won't have any moral reservations about using force. Leave regimes like Saddam in power and let Iran have their nukes. And if the U.S. is doing something the Iranians don't like, then they should be appeased. That will strengthen America's position in the world. Let Iran dictate its demands to the world once they have nukes. Allow them to gain more influence over the entire Middle East and to bring down moderate Arab regimes. Let more countries get nukes, that will make the world a safer place.

If we put a few more border patrol on the Mexican border the terrorists will never find a way to attack America! Maybe build a huge wall around the entire continental U.S. And maybe put the entire U.S. army and Marines on the borders! That way America will be safe no matter how much time the terrorists have to plot and plan their next attacks.

Sure maybe it wouldn't have prevented 9/11. And maybe a nuke could still be smuggled in by container since you will never be able to check every single one. And maybe the Iranians will eventually have missiles that can reach the U.S. But they would never use it, not even as leverage to get the West to change some of the policies they don't like. Let them blackmail the West. Let them spread terror all over the world.
The longer we wait the better the situation gets, don't you think?

And if it gets to the point where Iran makes greater and greater demands and a confrontation becomes inevitable, then at least we'll know we're fighting an adversary who really poses a threat and can cause millions and millions of casualties on both sides.

Not that Iran or Iraq ever showed that they are willing to sacrifice the lives of a million of their people on a pointless war!
 
Last edited:
Rachel said:
That's right! Bush is best friends with the terrorists. That's why the Taliban were kicked out of power and why the terrorists are being hunted to the ends of the earth.

And the pre-emptive strike policy is wrong. It would be a lot better for the U.S. to sit and wait for each threat to come home and kill a few thousand American citizens. The best way to know we're right and to feel morally justified is to let threats fully materialize and have nukes go off in Amrican towns. If nothing else, it will give America the sympathy of the world. You saw how many people around the world felt bad for the U.S. after 9/11 (except for those who celebrated). Imagine how much sympathy a nuke going off in New York or Washington D.C. will generate. It will be great for America's standing in the world.

This way liberals won't have any moral reservations about using force. Leave regimes like Saddam in power and let Iran have their nukes. And if the U.S. is doing something the Iranians don't like, then they should be appeased. That will strengthen America's position in the world. Let Iran dictate its demands to the world once they have nukes. Allow them to gain more influence over the entire Middle East and to bring down moderate Arab regimes. Let more countries get nukes, that will make the world a safer place.

If we put a few more border patrol on the Mexican border the terrorists will never find a way to attack America! Maybe build a huge wall around the entire continental U.S. And maybe put the entire U.S. army and Marines on the borders! That way America will be safe no matter how much time the terrorists have to plot and plan their next attacks.

Sure maybe it wouldn't have prevented 9/11. And maybe a nuke could still be smuggled in by container since you will never be able to check every single one. And maybe the Iranians will eventually have missiles that can reach the U.S. But they would never use it, not even as leverage to get the West to change some of the policies they don't like. Let them blackmail the West. Let them spread terror all over the world.
The longer we wait the better the situation gets, don't you think?

And if it gets to the point where Iran makes greater and greater demands and a confrontation becomes inevitable, then at least we'll know we're fighting an adversary who really poses a threat and can cause millions and millions of casualties on both sides.

Not that Iran or Iraq ever showed that they are willing to sacrifice the lives of a million of their people on a pointless war!

Dont you think that maybe this "its us against them" idea is only making the problem worse?

Maybe we should just take over the entire world so that we could police everyone easier?

News flash, just because we are a powerful country doesn't mean we get to tell everyone how they should live their lives. Iran sure does have the right to have nuclear missles if they want, and why wouldn't they? Because we deam them "evil", well excuse me, dont they deam us evil? Well, you feel threatened by them right? Don't you think they feel even more threatened by us? You're starting the war by throwing the first punch, justifying everything they do. You know that if some country was to invade the United States homesoil anything you did would be justified if you win the war. Keep in mind terrorists do NOT represent countries, they represent factions. I dont know what the proper response would be to a country that is unwilling to cooperate with us when we are hunting down our enemies, but is sure as hell isn't taking over their country and telling them that they have to have this type of government and follow these types of rules, that the UN's job, not the US.
 
SSlightning said:
Dont you think that maybe this "its us against them" idea is only making the problem worse?

Maybe we should just take over the entire world so that we could police everyone easier?

News flash, just because we are a powerful country doesn't mean we get to tell everyone how they should live their lives. Iran sure does have the right to have nuclear missles if they want, and why wouldn't they? Because we deam them "evil", well excuse me, dont they deam us evil? Well, you feel threatened by them right? Don't you think they feel even more threatened by us? You're starting the war by throwing the first punch, justifying everything they do. You know that if some country was to invade the United States homesoil anything you did would be justified if you win the war. Keep in mind terrorists do NOT represent countries, they represent factions. I dont know what the proper response would be to a country that is unwilling to cooperate with us when we are hunting down our enemies, but is sure as hell isn't taking over their country and telling them that they have to have this type of government and follow these types of rules, that the UN's job, not the US.

Are you freaking serious? You think Iran should be allowed to get nuclear weapons? That's freaking insane. Their president just threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Do you know what the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is? Iran signed it they don't have the right to get nuclear weapons. The U.N. can't even police themselves let alone the world. You think we should hand over our soveriegnty to the U.N.? Not on my watch skippy. The U.N. is corrupt they have the Sudan on their Human Rights Commission for Christs sakes they are dominated by despots and tyrants. Let the U.N. handle it? The U.N. has never adequatly handled anything in its entire existence and you want to intrust that defunct organization with the fate of the world?

Those nations who harbor terrorists will be considered terrorist states and instead of the carrot they will get the stick. Do you know what a state sponsor of terrorism is? Do you not think we have the right to take action against those countries who fund those organizations which kill Americans? Good to see you learned you lesson on 9-11. :roll:
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Are you freaking serious? You think Iran should be allowed to get nuclear weapons? That's freaking insane. Their president just threatened to wipe Israel off the map. Do you know what the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is? Iran signed it they don't have the right to get nuclear weapons. The U.N. can't even police themselves let alone the world. You think we should hand over our soveriegnty to the U.N.? Not on my watch skippy. The U.N. is corrupt they have the Sudan on their Human Rights Commission for Christs sakes they are dominated by despots and tyrants. Let the U.N. handle it? The U.N. has never adequatly handled anything in its entire existence and you want to intrust that defunct organization with the fate of the world?

Those nations who harbor terrorists will be considered terrorist states and instead of the carrot they will get the stick. Do you know what a state sponsor of terrorism is? Do you not think we have the right to take action against those countries who fund those organizations which kill Americans? Good to see you learned you lesson on 9-11. :roll:

Don't you understand that it's just talk? That's what politicians do, they talk. Do you really think they would nuke Israel when they know that if they did their entire country would be destroyed also? What about Iran makes you say they dont have the right to defend themselves? Your right, the UN isn't perfect, but the US isn't either. Something should be done with nations that harbor terrorists your right, but the first thing that happens can't be war, and even if you do go in their you should just take out the terrorists, and not the government. Of course if they were to stop you from what your trying to accomplish things get complicated. Theres no easy explanation, but just taking things over and setting up governments that we approve of isn't right.
 
Ironside said:
Here's the SOLUTION!

BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW! AND BOMB THE CRAP OUT OF ANY TOWN WE THINK TERROR IS BEING HARBORED WHERE EVER IN THE WORLD THAT MAY BE!


You don't put out campfires with gasoline.

That would probably also require us to bomb our own country..
 
Back
Top Bottom